In order for MFD drivers to fetch their cell pointer but also their
platform data one, an mfd cell pointer is added to the platform_device
structure.
That allows all MFD sub devices drivers to be MFD agnostic, unless
they really need to access their MFD cell data. Most of them don't,
especially the ones for IPs used by both MFD and non MFD SoCs.
Cc: Greg KH <[email protected]>
Cc: Grant Likely <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Samuel Ortiz <[email protected]>
---
drivers/base/platform.c | 1 +
drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
include/linux/mfd/core.h | 8 ++++++--
include/linux/platform_device.h | 5 +++++
4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/base/platform.c b/drivers/base/platform.c
index f051cff..6c3a2bd 100644
--- a/drivers/base/platform.c
+++ b/drivers/base/platform.c
@@ -149,6 +149,7 @@ static void platform_device_release(struct device *dev)
of_device_node_put(&pa->pdev.dev);
kfree(pa->pdev.dev.platform_data);
+ kfree(pa->pdev.mfd_cell);
kfree(pa->pdev.resource);
kfree(pa);
}
diff --git a/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c b/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c
index d01574d..f4c8c84 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c
@@ -55,6 +55,19 @@ int mfd_cell_disable(struct platform_device *pdev)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(mfd_cell_disable);
+static int mfd_platform_add_cell(struct platform_device *pdev,
+ const struct mfd_cell *cell)
+{
+ if (!cell)
+ return 0;
+
+ pdev->mfd_cell = kmemdup(cell, sizeof(*cell), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!pdev->mfd_cell)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
static int mfd_add_device(struct device *parent, int id,
const struct mfd_cell *cell,
struct resource *mem_base,
@@ -75,7 +88,7 @@ static int mfd_add_device(struct device *parent, int id,
pdev->dev.parent = parent;
- ret = platform_device_add_data(pdev, cell, sizeof(*cell));
+ ret = mfd_platform_add_cell(pdev, cell);
if (ret)
goto fail_res;
@@ -123,7 +136,6 @@ static int mfd_add_device(struct device *parent, int id,
return 0;
-/* platform_device_del(pdev); */
fail_res:
kfree(res);
fail_device:
diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/core.h b/include/linux/mfd/core.h
index ad1b19a..ee4731b 100644
--- a/include/linux/mfd/core.h
+++ b/include/linux/mfd/core.h
@@ -86,16 +86,20 @@ extern int mfd_clone_cell(const char *cell, const char **clones,
*/
static inline const struct mfd_cell *mfd_get_cell(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
- return pdev->dev.platform_data;
+ return pdev->mfd_cell;
}
/*
* Given a platform device that's been created by mfd_add_devices(), fetch
* the .mfd_data entry from the mfd_cell that created it.
+ * Otherwise just return the platform_data pointer.
*/
static inline void *mfd_get_data(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
- return mfd_get_cell(pdev)->mfd_data;
+ if (pdev->mfd_cell)
+ return mfd_get_cell(pdev)->mfd_data;
+ else
+ return pdev->dev.platform_data;
}
extern int mfd_add_devices(struct device *parent, int id,
diff --git a/include/linux/platform_device.h b/include/linux/platform_device.h
index d96db98..744942c 100644
--- a/include/linux/platform_device.h
+++ b/include/linux/platform_device.h
@@ -14,6 +14,8 @@
#include <linux/device.h>
#include <linux/mod_devicetable.h>
+struct mfd_cell;
+
struct platform_device {
const char * name;
int id;
@@ -23,6 +25,9 @@ struct platform_device {
const struct platform_device_id *id_entry;
+ /* MFD cell pointer */
+ struct mfd_cell *mfd_cell;
+
/* arch specific additions */
struct pdev_archdata archdata;
};
--
1.7.2.3
--
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
http://oss.intel.com/
This looks fine to me; just some minor points below.
On
Fri, 8 Apr 2011 02:40:09 +0200 Samuel Ortiz <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> In order for MFD drivers to fetch their cell pointer but also their
> platform data one, an mfd cell pointer is t aed to the
> platform_device structure.
> That allows all MFD sub devices drivers to be MFD agnostic, unless
> they really need to access their MFD cell data. Most of them don't,
> especially the ones for IPs used by both MFD and non MFD SoCs.
>
> Cc: Greg KH <[email protected]>
> Cc: Grant Likely <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Samuel Ortiz <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/base/platform.c | 1 +
> drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
> include/linux/mfd/core.h | 8 ++++++--
> include/linux/platform_device.h | 5 +++++
> 4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/platform.c b/drivers/base/platform.c
> index f051cff..6c3a2bd 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/platform.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/platform.c
> @@ -149,6 +149,7 @@ static void platform_device_release(struct device
> *dev)
> of_device_node_put(&pa->pdev.dev);
> kfree(pa->pdev.dev.platform_data);
> + kfree(pa->pdev.mfd_cell);
Hm, given that most platform devices won't be mfd devices (and thus
mfd_cell will be NULL), is it better to rely on kfree's
unlikely(ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR(...)), or have this be "if
(pa->pdev.mfd_cell) kfree(pa->pdev.mfd_cell);"?
> kfree(pa->pdev.resource);
> kfree(pa);
> }
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c b/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c
> index d01574d..f4c8c84 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c
> @@ -55,6 +55,19 @@ int mfd_cell_disable(struct platform_device *pdev)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(mfd_cell_disable);
>
> +static int mfd_platform_add_cell(struct platform_device *pdev,
> + const struct mfd_cell *cell)
> +{
> + if (!cell)
> + return 0;
> +
> + pdev->mfd_cell = kmemdup(cell, sizeof(*cell), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!pdev->mfd_cell)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static int mfd_add_device(struct device *parent, int id,
> const struct mfd_cell *cell,
> struct resource *mem_base,
> @@ -75,7 +88,7 @@ static int mfd_add_device(struct device *parent,
> int id,
> pdev->dev.parent = parent;
>
> - ret = platform_device_add_data(pdev, cell, sizeof(*cell));
> + ret = mfd_platform_add_cell(pdev, cell);
> if (ret)
> goto fail_res;
>
> @@ -123,7 +136,6 @@ static int mfd_add_device(struct device *parent,
> int id,
> return 0;
>
> -/* platform_device_del(pdev); */
> fail_res:
> kfree(res);
> fail_device:
> diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/core.h b/include/linux/mfd/core.h
> index ad1b19a..ee4731b 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mfd/core.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mfd/core.h
> @@ -86,16 +86,20 @@ extern int mfd_clone_cell(const char *cell, const
> char **clones, */
> static inline const struct mfd_cell *mfd_get_cell(struct
> platform_device *pdev) {
> - return pdev->dev.platform_data;
> + return pdev->mfd_cell;
> }
>
> /*
> * Given a platform device that's been created by mfd_add_devices(),
> fetch
> * the .mfd_data entry from the mfd_cell that created it.
> + * Otherwise just return the platform_data pointer.
I'd also suggest describing why we fall back to
platform_data; to the casual reader, it would be confusing. Perhaps
something to the effect of, "This maintains compatibility with
platform drivers whose devices aren't created by the mfd layer, and
expect platform_data to contain what would've otherwise been in
mfd_data."
> */
> static inline void *mfd_get_data(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> - return mfd_get_cell(pdev)->mfd_data;
> + if (pdev->mfd_cell)
> + return mfd_get_cell(pdev)->mfd_data;
> + else
> + return pdev->dev.platform_data;
Not much point checking pdev->mfd_cell and then using an abstraction.
I'd just do "const struct mfd_cell *cell = mfd_get_cell(pdev); if
(cell) return cell->mfd_data;" or "if (pdev->mfd_cell) return
pdev->mfd_cell->mfd_data;"
> }
>
> extern int mfd_add_devices(struct device *parent, int id,
> diff --git a/include/linux/platform_device.h
> b/include/linux/platform_device.h index d96db98..744942c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/platform_device.h
> +++ b/include/linux/platform_device.h
> @@ -14,6 +14,8 @@
> #include <linux/device.h>
> #include <linux/mod_devicetable.h>
>
> +struct mfd_cell;
> +
> struct platform_device {
> const char * name;
> int id;
> @@ -23,6 +25,9 @@ struct platform_device {
>
> const struct platform_device_id *id_entry;
>
> + /* MFD cell pointer */
> + struct mfd_cell *mfd_cell;
> +
> /* arch specific additions */
> struct pdev_archdata archdata;
> };
Hi Andres,
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 07:38:55PM -0700, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/platform.c b/drivers/base/platform.c
> > index f051cff..6c3a2bd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/platform.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/platform.c
> > @@ -149,6 +149,7 @@ static void platform_device_release(struct device
> > *dev)
> > of_device_node_put(&pa->pdev.dev);
> > kfree(pa->pdev.dev.platform_data);
> > + kfree(pa->pdev.mfd_cell);
>
> Hm, given that most platform devices won't be mfd devices (and thus
> mfd_cell will be NULL), is it better to rely on kfree's
> unlikely(ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR(...)), or have this be "if
> (pa->pdev.mfd_cell) kfree(pa->pdev.mfd_cell);"?
I'd say the former (obviously), unless Greg wants it to be otherwise.
> > --- a/include/linux/mfd/core.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/mfd/core.h
> > @@ -86,16 +86,20 @@ extern int mfd_clone_cell(const char *cell, const
> > char **clones, */
> > static inline const struct mfd_cell *mfd_get_cell(struct
> > platform_device *pdev) {
> > - return pdev->dev.platform_data;
> > + return pdev->mfd_cell;
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > * Given a platform device that's been created by mfd_add_devices(),
> > fetch
> > * the .mfd_data entry from the mfd_cell that created it.
> > + * Otherwise just return the platform_data pointer.
>
> I'd also suggest describing why we fall back to
> platform_data; to the casual reader, it would be confusing. Perhaps
> something to the effect of, "This maintains compatibility with
> platform drivers whose devices aren't created by the mfd layer, and
> expect platform_data to contain what would've otherwise been in
> mfd_data."
Right. I'll add that.
> > */
> > static inline void *mfd_get_data(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > {
> > - return mfd_get_cell(pdev)->mfd_data;
> > + if (pdev->mfd_cell)
> > + return mfd_get_cell(pdev)->mfd_data;
> > + else
> > + return pdev->dev.platform_data;
>
> Not much point checking pdev->mfd_cell and then using an abstraction.
That's right as well. I'll send v1 next with those 2 fixes.
Thanks for the review.
Cheers,
Samuel.
--
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
http://oss.intel.com/
On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 12:54:52AM +0200, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> Hi Andres,
>
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 07:38:55PM -0700, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/base/platform.c b/drivers/base/platform.c
> > > index f051cff..6c3a2bd 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/base/platform.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/base/platform.c
> > > @@ -149,6 +149,7 @@ static void platform_device_release(struct device
> > > *dev)
> > > of_device_node_put(&pa->pdev.dev);
> > > kfree(pa->pdev.dev.platform_data);
> > > + kfree(pa->pdev.mfd_cell);
> >
> > Hm, given that most platform devices won't be mfd devices (and thus
> > mfd_cell will be NULL), is it better to rely on kfree's
> > unlikely(ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR(...)), or have this be "if
> > (pa->pdev.mfd_cell) kfree(pa->pdev.mfd_cell);"?
> I'd say the former (obviously), unless Greg wants it to be otherwise.
Yes, as the patch was originally written is fine with me.
thanks,
greg k-h
In order for MFD drivers to fetch their cell pointer but also their
platform data one, an mfd cell pointer is added to the platform_device
structure.
That allows all MFD sub devices drivers to be MFD agnostic, unless
they really need to access their MFD cell data. Most of them don't,
especially the ones for IPs used by both MFD and non MFD SoCs.
Cc: Greg KH <[email protected]>
Cc: Grant Likely <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Samuel Ortiz <[email protected]>
---
RFC -> v1:
- Add more mfd_get_data() comments.
- Cleaned up mfd_get_data()
---
drivers/base/platform.c | 1 +
drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
include/linux/mfd/core.h | 13 +++++++++++--
include/linux/platform_device.h | 5 +++++
4 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/base/platform.c b/drivers/base/platform.c
index f051cff..6c3a2bd 100644
--- a/drivers/base/platform.c
+++ b/drivers/base/platform.c
@@ -149,6 +149,7 @@ static void platform_device_release(struct device *dev)
of_device_node_put(&pa->pdev.dev);
kfree(pa->pdev.dev.platform_data);
+ kfree(pa->pdev.mfd_cell);
kfree(pa->pdev.resource);
kfree(pa);
}
diff --git a/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c b/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c
index d01574d..f4c8c84 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c
@@ -55,6 +55,19 @@ int mfd_cell_disable(struct platform_device *pdev)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(mfd_cell_disable);
+static int mfd_platform_add_cell(struct platform_device *pdev,
+ const struct mfd_cell *cell)
+{
+ if (!cell)
+ return 0;
+
+ pdev->mfd_cell = kmemdup(cell, sizeof(*cell), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!pdev->mfd_cell)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
static int mfd_add_device(struct device *parent, int id,
const struct mfd_cell *cell,
struct resource *mem_base,
@@ -75,7 +88,7 @@ static int mfd_add_device(struct device *parent, int id,
pdev->dev.parent = parent;
- ret = platform_device_add_data(pdev, cell, sizeof(*cell));
+ ret = mfd_platform_add_cell(pdev, cell);
if (ret)
goto fail_res;
@@ -123,7 +136,6 @@ static int mfd_add_device(struct device *parent, int id,
return 0;
-/* platform_device_del(pdev); */
fail_res:
kfree(res);
fail_device:
diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/core.h b/include/linux/mfd/core.h
index ad1b19a..aef23309 100644
--- a/include/linux/mfd/core.h
+++ b/include/linux/mfd/core.h
@@ -86,16 +86,25 @@ extern int mfd_clone_cell(const char *cell, const char **clones,
*/
static inline const struct mfd_cell *mfd_get_cell(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
- return pdev->dev.platform_data;
+ return pdev->mfd_cell;
}
/*
* Given a platform device that's been created by mfd_add_devices(), fetch
* the .mfd_data entry from the mfd_cell that created it.
+ * Otherwise just return the platform_data pointer.
+ * This maintains compatibility with platform drivers whose devices aren't
+ * created by the mfd layer, and expect platform_data to contain what would've
+ * otherwise been in mfd_data.
*/
static inline void *mfd_get_data(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
- return mfd_get_cell(pdev)->mfd_data;
+ const struct mfd_cell *cell = mfd_get_cell(pdev);
+
+ if (cell)
+ return cell->mfd_data;
+ else
+ return pdev->dev.platform_data;
}
extern int mfd_add_devices(struct device *parent, int id,
diff --git a/include/linux/platform_device.h b/include/linux/platform_device.h
index d96db98..744942c 100644
--- a/include/linux/platform_device.h
+++ b/include/linux/platform_device.h
@@ -14,6 +14,8 @@
#include <linux/device.h>
#include <linux/mod_devicetable.h>
+struct mfd_cell;
+
struct platform_device {
const char * name;
int id;
@@ -23,6 +25,9 @@ struct platform_device {
const struct platform_device_id *id_entry;
+ /* MFD cell pointer */
+ struct mfd_cell *mfd_cell;
+
/* arch specific additions */
struct pdev_archdata archdata;
};
--
1.7.2.3
--
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
http://oss.intel.com/
On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 01:11:09AM +0200, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
>
> In order for MFD drivers to fetch their cell pointer but also their
> platform data one, an mfd cell pointer is added to the platform_device
> structure.
> That allows all MFD sub devices drivers to be MFD agnostic, unless
> they really need to access their MFD cell data. Most of them don't,
> especially the ones for IPs used by both MFD and non MFD SoCs.
>
> Cc: Greg KH <[email protected]>
> Cc: Grant Likely <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Samuel Ortiz <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
I'm guesing this will go through someone elses tree than mine?
thanks,
greg k-h
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 01:11:09AM +0200, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
>>
>> In order for MFD drivers to fetch their cell pointer but also their
>> platform data one, an mfd cell pointer is added to the platform_device
>> structure.
>> That allows all MFD sub devices drivers to be MFD agnostic, unless
>> they really need to access their MFD cell data. Most of them don't,
>> especially the ones for IPs used by both MFD and non MFD SoCs.
>>
>> Cc: Greg KH <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Grant Likely <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Samuel Ortiz <[email protected]>
>
> Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
>
> I'm guesing this will go through someone elses tree than mine?
I'd say so. Samuel, please get this out to Linus,
thanks,
g.
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 07:16:54PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 01:11:09AM +0200, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> >
> > In order for MFD drivers to fetch their cell pointer but also their
> > platform data one, an mfd cell pointer is added to the platform_device
> > structure.
> > That allows all MFD sub devices drivers to be MFD agnostic, unless
> > they really need to access their MFD cell data. Most of them don't,
> > especially the ones for IPs used by both MFD and non MFD SoCs.
> >
> > Cc: Greg KH <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Grant Likely <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Samuel Ortiz <[email protected]>
>
> Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
Thanks.
> I'm guesing this will go through someone elses tree than mine?
Yes, I'll push it through my MFD tree.
Cheers,
Samuel.
--
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
http://oss.intel.com/